URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Dareos Inc. et al. v. Moniker Privacy Services et al.
Claim Number: FA1909001862215


DOMAIN NAME

<club-vlk.xyz>
 <clubvulkan.xyz>
 <online-vlk.xyz>
 <velikan-slotss.xyz>
 <velikan-slotsz.xyz>
 <vlc-clb.xyz>
 <vlc-slots.xyz>
 <vlk-club.xyz>
 <vul-clubs.xyz>
 <vulgambles.xyz>
 <vulkanclubus.xyz>
 <vulkanclubz.xyz>
 <vulkan-zal.xyz>
 <vulslot.xyz>
 <vulslots.xyz>
 <vul-winnerz.xyz>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Dareos LTD of Nicosia, Cyprus
  

   Respondent: Moniker Privacy Services Moniker Privacy Services of Fort Lauderdale, FL, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
   Registrars: Key-Systems LLC

EXAMINER


   The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
   Lars Karnøe, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: September 16, 2019
   Commencement: September 17, 2019
   Default Date: October 3, 2019
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION



   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.


The Complaint is based on [URS 1.2.6] The Complainant must demonstrate that the Complainant holds not only a trademark but a word mark, that said word mark is identical or confusingly similar to the domain name / names in dispute and that said word mark is in current use [URS 1.2.6.1] and [URS 1.2.6.1.(i)]. The Complainant is based on the trademarks VULKAN, VOLCANO and ВУЛКАН (VULKAN in cyrillic letters) and the Complainant have filed several trademark registrations with the Complaint most of these are not word marks but figurative marks though. However the Complainant have filed sufficient evidence that all three word marks relied on - VULKAN, VOLCANO and ВУЛКАН – are registered as word marks either through regional or national registrations. None of the domain names comprised in the Complaint are identical to any of the three word marks VULKAN, VOLCANO or ВУЛКАН (VULKAN in cyrillic letters). None of the domain names comprised in the Complaint are confusingly similar to the word marks VOLCANO or ВУЛКАН (VULKAN in cyrillic letters). The following domain names are confusingly similar to the word mark VULKAN: - clubvulkan.xyz - vulkan-zal.xyz - vulkanclubus.xyz - vulkanclubz.xyz as the domain names only separate themselves from the word mark VULKAN by the addition of the generic terms “club”, “clubus”, “clubz” and “zal”(meaning “hall” in English). It rests on the Complainant to support the Complaint with clear and convincing evidence [URS 8.2] that in casu the word mark VULKAN is in current use. The evidence produced by the Complainant on this point referring to the use of the domain name vulkanvegas.com leading to a web site where the word mark VULKAN is used as part of VULKAN VEGAS CASINO is considered sufficient.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.


By using the domain name to direct traffic to a web site headed with the logo of the Complainant the Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. clubvulkan.xyz
  2. vulkanclubus.xyz
  3. vulkanclubz.xyz
  4. vulkan-zal.xyz


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of Respondent:

  1. club-vlk.xyz
  2. online-vlk.xyz
  3. velikan-slotss.xyz
  4. velikan-slotsz.xyz
  5. vlc-clb.xyz
  6. vlc-slots.xyz
  7. vlk-club.xyz
  8. vul-clubs.xyz
  9. vulgambles.xyz
  10. vulslot.xyz
  11. vulslots.xyz
  12. vul-winnerz.xyz

 

Lars Karnøe
Examiner
Dated: October 3, 2019

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page